AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sanjay Dhar, J
1) By the medium of instant petition, petitioner has challenged legality and veracity of the detention order No.07/DMA/PSA/DET/2021 dated
26.02.2021, issued by District Magistrate, Anantnag (for brevity “Detaining Authorityâ€) whereby Shri Adil Manzoor Mir son of Manzoor Ahmad
Mir resident of Heaven Colony Ashajipora Anantnag(for short “detenuâ€) has been placed under preventive detention and directed to be lodged in
District Jail, Kathua.
2) Petitioner has contended that the Detaining Authority has passed the impugned detention order mechanically without application of mind, inasmuch
as the Constitutional and Statutory procedural safeguards have not been complied with in the instant case. It has also been urged that the allegations
made against the detenue in the grounds of detention are vague and that the detenue has been disabled from making an effective representation
against his detention as the material forming basis of the grounds of detention has not been furnished to the detenue.
3) The respondents, in their counter affidavit, have disputed the averments made in the petition and stated that they have followed the provisions of
J&K Public Safety Act. It is contended that the detenue has been detained only after following due procedure; that the grounds of detention were
read over to the detenue; that there has been proper application of mind for detaining the detenue and that the detenue has been provided all the
material. The learned counsel for the respondents also produced the detention record to lend support to the stand taken in the counter affidavit.
4) I have heard learned counsel for parties and I have also gone through detention record.
5) Learned counsel for the petitioner, while seeking quashment of the impugned order, projected various grounds but the main ground that has
prevailed during the discussion is that the detenue has been disabled from making an effective representation against his detention as the material
forming basis of the grounds of detention and the translated copies of grounds of detention have not been supplied to him.
6) On perusal of the detention record produced by learned counsel for the respondents, the ground regarding non-supply of relevant material appears
to have substance as the record suggests that whole of the relevant material has not been supplied to the detenue. The execution report available in
the record reveals that the detenue has been supplied only 02 leaves comprising of copy of detention warrant and grounds of detention. Thus, it
appears that the detenue has not been provided the copy of the dossier and the copy of the FIR No.09/2021 for the offences u/s 7/25 Arms Act of
P/S Anantnag, which formed basis of his detention. This goes to support the contention of the petitioner that he has not been supplied the relevant
material. Obviously, the petitioner has been hampered by non-supply of the relevant material in making an effective representation against his
detention before the concerned authority/Advisory Board.
7) Non-furnishing of relevant material forming basis of the grounds of detention deprives a detenue of his Constitutional right to make a representation
against the order of detention. The denial of this Constitutional right renders the order of detention unsustainable in law. I am supported in my
aforesaid view by the judgments of the Supreme Court in Sophia Gulam Mohd. Bham v. State of Maharashtra &ors (AIR 1999 SC 3051), Thahira
Haris etc. etc. Vs. Government of Karnataka &Ors (AIR 2009 SC 2184) and Ibrahim Ahmad Bhatti alias Mohd. Akhtar Hussain alias Kandar
Ahmad Wagher alias Iqbal alias Gulam Vs. State of Gujarat and othersâ€, (1982) 3 SCC 440.
8) The cumulative effect of the aforesaid discussion leads to the only conclusion that in the instant case, the respondents have not adhered to the legal
and Constitutional safeguards while passing the impugned detention order against the petitioner. The impugned order of detention is, therefore,
unsustainable. Accordingly, the same is quashed. The detenue is directed to be released from the preventive custody forthwith provided he is not
required in connection with any other case.
9) The record, as produced, be returned to the learned counsel for the respondents.